ReviewClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2026
Beyond the scalpel: forensic patterns, epistemic limits, and the medico-legal classification of femicide.
Review in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo synthesize forensic autopsy findings reported in femicide and to evaluate their contribution, limitations, and appropriate use in medico-legal classification.
methodsA structured narrative review was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, SciELO, and ScienceDirect for publications from January 2000 to March 2026. Search terms addressed femicide, gender-related homicide, forensic pathology, autopsy, injury patterns, and forensic evidence. Sources providing forensic, autopsy, injury-pattern, or analytical medico-legal data were included in the main synthesis. Epidemiological and public health studies were retained only for contextual interpretation.
resultsTen forensic or analytical sources were retained for the main narrative synthesis, and ten epidemiological or public health sources were retained for contextual framing. Recurrent findings included overkill, craniofacial and cervical injuries, asphyxial mechanisms, defensive wounds, and weapon-specific patterns. However, these findings were non-specific and did not reliably distinguish intimate partner femicide from non-intimate partner femicide. The Belgrade autopsy series reinforced the importance of domestic setting and firearm use while showing substantial overlap in injury morphology between femicide subtypes.
conclusionFemicide is associated with a recognizable but non-specific forensic profile. Morphology alone cannot establish gender-related motivation or legal classification. Expert interpretation should integrate autopsy findings with crime-scene reconstruction, victim-perpetrator relationship, prior violence, weapon access, and sociobehavioral context. Standardized documentation and integrated medico-legal frameworks may improve forensic consistency, judicial communication, and public health surveillance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.